Once upon a time, Peter Jr. Quiring <pquiring@xxxxxxxxxxx> said: > I understand that Shared libraries > save space and this is good for software that is bundled with the OS, but > for third party vendors, static would be a more ideal solution. They don't just save space on the disk; they save RAM (as shared libraries can be shared between processes). > I tried to move a binary built on FC5 to a FC4 system and of course it > didn't work (openssl version mismatch). Another benefit of shared libraries is that a security or bugfix update to the library only requires a new library; all programs using the shared library get the fix. Any programs that used static linking will have to be rebuilt. OpenSSL has had several such security updates for example. Also, according to the terms of the LGPL (which for example glibc is licensed under), if link your program statically to an LGPL library, you need to include the object and/or source code of your program in any distribution (or an offer for the object and/or source) so that it could be relinked against the LGPLed library. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
